Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6599682" data-attributes="member: 7006">My point was that I think it was and is completely okay that there are multiple ways to get to what everyone wants.&nbsp; If someone feels like their particular &quot;ultimate&quot; warlock requires some bard or sorcerer levels to get the flavor, abilities, *and* power that they think it needs... then that's great!&nbsp; Nothing wrong with that!But at the same time... while this particular person felt taking bard or sorcerer levels were necessary... another person might feel that the stuff you get when going straight Warlock 20 is also all that is needed to get their own &quot;ultimate&quot; warlock.&nbsp; Multiclassing is not necessary for this person.That's why I said the current Warlock class wasn't a &quot;design failure&quot;, because while one person might not think a straight Warlock 20 is the best way to get their &quot;ultimate&quot; warlock, another person might and does.&nbsp; And that's what great about the game... that you can take multiple build paths to get to exactly the type of character you think is the &quot;ultimate&quot; version of that character.&nbsp; And one build path isn't better or &quot;more right&quot; than any other.The thing I was getting from some of the comments was that the warlock was badly designed because the only way to get a quality level 20 warlock was by taking bard or sorcerer levels.&nbsp; If that was in fact the point being made by those folks... then my point was that it was assuming what I felt was two incorrect things--&nbsp; one, that that person's specific belief of what the build of Warlock &quot;should&quot; be was empirical fact (hence the use of the term &quot;design failure&quot;)... and two, that by extension if that was how the class &quot;should&quot; have been designed in the first place, it implies that a Warlock 20 build is more important or better to get to the character concept and story of a warlock type of character than using a Warlock/Bard or a Warlock/Sorcerer multiclass.&nbsp; That a person *should* be able to go straight Warlock 20 to get to the &quot;ultimate&quot; warlock.In the former, I'd disagree that a Warlock/Bard or Sorcerer multiclass is empirically the &quot;best&quot; warlock, because everyone's needs for the class are different and just because the poster felt a multiclass build was the best way to accomplish it, doesn't mean it's right or best for everyone else... and in the latter, I'd disagree that any one build is better or worse than another, and that there's nothing wrong (and in fact it should be encouraged) with building a character mechanically that best exemplifies who your character is (within reason of course, such that you aren't overpowering the rest of your party.)&nbsp; A straight 20 levels in one class isn't better *or* worse than multiclassing.&nbsp; One PC build isn't more &quot;right&quot; than another that way.And this feeling is exactly why I'm all for considering &quot;refluffing&quot; to be a completely legitimate exercise to get the mechanics of your character to match up to your concept... and that also designing all-new sub-classes and classes and such to also get there is also a hearty thumbs-up!&nbsp; And that no one should think &quot;needing&quot; to do so is somehow producing a &quot;lesser&quot; character than another player that can build their PC strictly from what they can get from the book.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6599682, member: 7006"] My point was that I think it was and is completely okay that there are multiple ways to get to what everyone wants. If someone feels like their particular "ultimate" warlock requires some bard or sorcerer levels to get the flavor, abilities, *and* power that they think it needs... then that's great! Nothing wrong with that! But at the same time... while this particular person felt taking bard or sorcerer levels were necessary... another person might feel that the stuff you get when going straight Warlock 20 is also all that is needed to get their own "ultimate" warlock. Multiclassing is not necessary for this person. That's why I said the current Warlock class wasn't a "design failure", because while one person might not think a straight Warlock 20 is the best way to get their "ultimate" warlock, another person might and does. And that's what great about the game... that you can take multiple build paths to get to exactly the type of character you think is the "ultimate" version of that character. And one build path isn't better or "more right" than any other. The thing I was getting from some of the comments was that the warlock was badly designed because the only way to get a quality level 20 warlock was by taking bard or sorcerer levels. If that was in fact the point being made by those folks... then my point was that it was assuming what I felt was two incorrect things-- one, that that person's specific belief of what the build of Warlock "should" be was empirical fact (hence the use of the term "design failure")... and two, that by extension if that was how the class "should" have been designed in the first place, it implies that a Warlock 20 build is more important or better to get to the character concept and story of a warlock type of character than using a Warlock/Bard or a Warlock/Sorcerer multiclass. That a person *should* be able to go straight Warlock 20 to get to the "ultimate" warlock. In the former, I'd disagree that a Warlock/Bard or Sorcerer multiclass is empirically the "best" warlock, because everyone's needs for the class are different and just because the poster felt a multiclass build was the best way to accomplish it, doesn't mean it's right or best for everyone else... and in the latter, I'd disagree that any one build is better or worse than another, and that there's nothing wrong (and in fact it should be encouraged) with building a character mechanically that best exemplifies who your character is (within reason of course, such that you aren't overpowering the rest of your party.) A straight 20 levels in one class isn't better *or* worse than multiclassing. One PC build isn't more "right" than another that way. And this feeling is exactly why I'm all for considering "refluffing" to be a completely legitimate exercise to get the mechanics of your character to match up to your concept... and that also designing all-new sub-classes and classes and such to also get there is also a hearty thumbs-up! And that no one should think "needing" to do so is somehow producing a "lesser" character than another player that can build their PC strictly from what they can get from the book. [/QUOTE]

Verification